Columbia EIP 2017

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
Anonymous User
Posts: 313028
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 21, 2017 11:06 pm

Worried my list is too ambitious, would really appreciate some feedback.

Stats: .002 shy of Stone, k-jd, only interested in corporate. Idk what a good interviewer is. I guess I'm okay, but doubt I outperform my numbers because of my interviewing ability. Everything on the list is NY except my last three bids.

1. Sidley Austin (2)
2. Weil (4)
3. Debevoise & Plimpton (3)
4. Ropes & Gray (6)
5. Cahill (9)
6. Willkie Farr (9)
7. Akin Gump (11)
8. Fried Frank (13)
9. Goodwin Procter (13)
10. O'Melveny & Myers (14)
11. Paul Hastings (19)
12. Jones Day (19)
13. Linklaters (17)
14. Shearman & Sterling (20)
15. Cravath (19)
16. Kirkland & Ellis (28)
17. Cadwalader (26)
18. Simpson Thacher (22)
19. Clifford Chance (27)
20. Mayer Brown (26)
21. Schulte (27)
22. Arnold & Porter (26)
23. Freshfields (28)
24. McDermott Will and Emery (30)
25. Norton Rose Fulbright (29)
26. Greenburg Traurig (*)
27. Stroock & Stroock (*)
28. Skadden, Arps (* - Chicago)
29. Mayer Brown (* - Chicago)
30. Winston Strawn (* - Chicago)

I'm especially worried about the top of my list. Specifically, should I get rid of Debevoise to give everything below more breathing room? Or maybe replace it with a less grade sensitive firm like Milbank?

Also, decided to include Cravath, K&E, and Simpson as reaches since I didn't have to sacrifice a high spot on my list for them. Thoughts? Maybe 3 is too many?

Any other glaring omissions? Please be critical, thanks!

Anonymous User
Posts: 313028
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jun 22, 2017 7:17 pm

My 2 cents. GPA was close to yours (non-Stone). (Non-URM, okay softs).

Of the firms on your list, with similar grades I had callbacks (and for many, ultimately offers) at: Paul Hastings, Shearman & Sterling, Clifford Chance. Of firms not on your list: Chadbourne, Milbank, Allen & Overy.

I wouldn't bother with Cravath. Not sure about Debevoise - it is pretty grade-sensitive, but may be within reach. I would add Milbank higher on your list, and include Chadbourne and Allen & Overy.

Anonymous User
Posts: 313028
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:00 pm

Anonymous User wrote:My 2 cents. GPA was close to yours (non-Stone). (Non-URM, okay softs).

Of the firms on your list, with similar grades I had callbacks (and for many, ultimately offers) at: Paul Hastings, Shearman & Sterling, Clifford Chance. Of firms not on your list: Chadbourne, Milbank, Allen & Overy.

I wouldn't bother with Cravath. Not sure about Debevoise - it is pretty grade-sensitive, but may be within reach. I would add Milbank higher on your list, and include Chadbourne and Allen & Overy.


Thank for the reply, really appreciate the help.

Okay, replacing Deb with Milbank at 3 and leaning towards swapping Cravath at 15 on my list w/ Chadbourne.

Is Allen & Overy worth it though? FBB was 6 and only 5 offers. Really interested in the Magic Circle firms, but do you think it is worth swapping it with like Ropes & Gray?

Anybody else have thoughts, too?

TheoO

Silver
Posts: 658
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 1:28 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby TheoO » Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:28 pm

Is Chadbourne even doing EIP? They are getting bought out and experiencing mass partner flight at the moment.

Anonymous User
Posts: 313028
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jun 23, 2017 8:26 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:My 2 cents. GPA was close to yours (non-Stone). (Non-URM, okay softs).

Of the firms on your list, with similar grades I had callbacks (and for many, ultimately offers) at: Paul Hastings, Shearman & Sterling, Clifford Chance. Of firms not on your list: Chadbourne, Milbank, Allen & Overy.

I wouldn't bother with Cravath. Not sure about Debevoise - it is pretty grade-sensitive, but may be within reach. I would add Milbank higher on your list, and include Chadbourne and Allen & Overy.


Thank for the reply, really appreciate the help.

Okay, replacing Deb with Milbank at 3 and leaning towards swapping Cravath at 15 on my list w/ Chadbourne.

Is Allen & Overy worth it though? FBB was 6 and only 5 offers. Really interested in the Magic Circle firms, but do you think it is worth swapping it with like Ropes & Gray?

Anybody else have thoughts, too?


W/r/t A&O: I agree with your instincts. Definitely don't swap it for Ropes & Gray or any other employer who recruits heavily from CLS at <50% Stone.

W/r/t Chadbourne: Good point -- it's no longer a standalone law firm, so without more information, don't swap it in.

Can anyone else speak to Debevoise?

TheoO

Silver
Posts: 658
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 1:28 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby TheoO » Fri Jun 23, 2017 9:09 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:My 2 cents. GPA was close to yours (non-Stone). (Non-URM, okay softs).

Of the firms on your list, with similar grades I had callbacks (and for many, ultimately offers) at: Paul Hastings, Shearman & Sterling, Clifford Chance. Of firms not on your list: Chadbourne, Milbank, Allen & Overy.

I wouldn't bother with Cravath. Not sure about Debevoise - it is pretty grade-sensitive, but may be within reach. I would add Milbank higher on your list, and include Chadbourne and Allen & Overy.


Thank for the reply, really appreciate the help.

Okay, replacing Deb with Milbank at 3 and leaning towards swapping Cravath at 15 on my list w/ Chadbourne.

Is Allen & Overy worth it though? FBB was 6 and only 5 offers. Really interested in the Magic Circle firms, but do you think it is worth swapping it with like Ropes & Gray?

Anybody else have thoughts, too?


W/r/t A&O: I agree with your instincts. Definitely don't swap it for Ropes & Gray or any other employer who recruits heavily from CLS at <50% Stone.

W/r/t Chadbourne: Good point -- it's no longer a standalone law firm, so without more information, don't swap it in.

Can anyone else speak to Debevoise?


What of it? You should be stone to have a realistic shot. I know people who got it at very low stone, but unless diversity you'll need that.

Anonymous User
Posts: 313028
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:01 pm

OP here. Thanks for the responses everyone. Confirmed my suspicion that my list was too risky.

Thinking of dropping Weil as well to give Milbank and Ropes & Gray more room. Weil has nearly same % honors as Debevoise and I think Milbank dropped a schedule compared to last year. Guessing that means their FBB will shoot up.

Anonymous User
Posts: 313028
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:40 pm

If I'm low Stone, how should I regard the offers by honors list? Obviously firms are going to look at my grades very differently than someone with a 3.7, so how can I have some idea of which are out of reach?

Anonymous User
Posts: 313028
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jun 23, 2017 7:09 pm

Also interested in bidding as a low-stone. I have a 3.45 and I am interested in NY litigation. Do I have a realistic shot at firms like Cravath, Gibson Dunn, Paul Weiss, Skadden, and Davis Polk?

Anonymous User
Posts: 313028
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jun 23, 2017 7:20 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Also interested in bidding as a low-stone. I have a 3.45 and I am interested in NY litigation. Do I have a realistic shot at firms like Cravath, Gibson Dunn, Paul Weiss, Skadden, and Davis Polk?


they are plausible, but not likely. Gibson Dunn and Skadden will be accessible. Davis Polk and Paul Weiss will take low stone students if they interview well and have a good resume. Cravath will take even fewer low stone but some if you really fit the mold. I would be careful about stacking only honors firms and have a handful of less selective ones, but these five should be on your list.

GoneSouth

Bronze
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2015 10:00 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby GoneSouth » Fri Jun 23, 2017 11:37 pm

TheoO wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:My 2 cents. GPA was close to yours (non-Stone). (Non-URM, okay softs).

Of the firms on your list, with similar grades I had callbacks (and for many, ultimately offers) at: Paul Hastings, Shearman & Sterling, Clifford Chance. Of firms not on your list: Chadbourne, Milbank, Allen & Overy.

I wouldn't bother with Cravath. Not sure about Debevoise - it is pretty grade-sensitive, but may be within reach. I would add Milbank higher on your list, and include Chadbourne and Allen & Overy.


Thank for the reply, really appreciate the help.

Okay, replacing Deb with Milbank at 3 and leaning towards swapping Cravath at 15 on my list w/ Chadbourne.

Is Allen & Overy worth it though? FBB was 6 and only 5 offers. Really interested in the Magic Circle firms, but do you think it is worth swapping it with like Ropes & Gray?

Anybody else have thoughts, too?


W/r/t A&O: I agree with your instincts. Definitely don't swap it for Ropes & Gray or any other employer who recruits heavily from CLS at <50% Stone.

W/r/t Chadbourne: Good point -- it's no longer a standalone law firm, so without more information, don't swap it in.

Can anyone else speak to Debevoise?


What of it? You should be stone to have a realistic shot. I know people who got it at very low stone, but unless diversity you'll need that.


I know a current Debevoise summer who wasn't Stone. They did go to Ivy League undergrad and were a URM though

TheoO

Silver
Posts: 658
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 1:28 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby TheoO » Sat Jun 24, 2017 1:59 am

GoneSouth wrote:
TheoO wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:My 2 cents. GPA was close to yours (non-Stone). (Non-URM, okay softs).

Of the firms on your list, with similar grades I had callbacks (and for many, ultimately offers) at: Paul Hastings, Shearman & Sterling, Clifford Chance. Of firms not on your list: Chadbourne, Milbank, Allen & Overy.

I wouldn't bother with Cravath. Not sure about Debevoise - it is pretty grade-sensitive, but may be within reach. I would add Milbank higher on your list, and include Chadbourne and Allen & Overy.


Thank for the reply, really appreciate the help.

Okay, replacing Deb with Milbank at 3 and leaning towards swapping Cravath at 15 on my list w/ Chadbourne.

Is Allen & Overy worth it though? FBB was 6 and only 5 offers. Really interested in the Magic Circle firms, but do you think it is worth swapping it with like Ropes & Gray?

Anybody else have thoughts, too?


W/r/t A&O: I agree with your instincts. Definitely don't swap it for Ropes & Gray or any other employer who recruits heavily from CLS at <50% Stone.

W/r/t Chadbourne: Good point -- it's no longer a standalone law firm, so without more information, don't swap it in.

Can anyone else speak to Debevoise?


What of it? You should be stone to have a realistic shot. I know people who got it at very low stone, but unless diversity you'll need that.


I know a current Debevoise summer who wasn't Stone. They did go to Ivy League undergrad and were a URM though


I know someone from the previous year who wasn't stone also, but again: URM. On the whole, if you're not stone, bet against getting Deb. Maybe work experience and elite ug may put you through the door.

TheoO

Silver
Posts: 658
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 1:28 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby TheoO » Sat Jun 24, 2017 2:00 am

GoneSouth wrote:
I know a current Debevoise summer who wasn't Stone. They did go to Ivy League undergrad and were a URM though


I know someone from the previous year who wasn't stone also, but again: URM. On the whole, if you're not stone, bet against getting Deb. Maybe work experience and elite ug may put you through the door.

Anonymous User
Posts: 313028
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:47 am

TheoO wrote:
GoneSouth wrote:
I know a current Debevoise summer who wasn't Stone. They did go to Ivy League undergrad and were a URM though


I know someone from the previous year who wasn't stone also, but again: URM. On the whole, if you're not stone, bet against getting Deb. Maybe work experience and elite ug may put you through the door.


Weil too?

TheoO

Silver
Posts: 658
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 1:28 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby TheoO » Sat Jun 24, 2017 11:15 am

Anonymous User wrote:
TheoO wrote:
GoneSouth wrote:
I know a current Debevoise summer who wasn't Stone. They did go to Ivy League undergrad and were a URM though


I know someone from the previous year who wasn't stone also, but again: URM. On the whole, if you're not stone, bet against getting Deb. Maybe work experience and elite ug may put you through the door.


Weil too?


definitely less selective than deb. You can likely get it below stone, maybe even at or just above median. Weil is funny. They like to play hard to get at eip but for the past two years they have struggled to turn offers into acceptance. inevitably, they end up taking people later into the game. I know a few who struck out and ended up at well in November or Jan. And they do 3L hiring also
Last edited by TheoO on Sat Jun 24, 2017 11:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 313028
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jun 24, 2017 11:28 am

Is this too aggressive? Low stone. I think it might be overly ambitious- I do have a 1L SA position though at an AmLaw 200 firm that I really enjoy and while they aren’t vault rank I would be happy if I went back to them, but I also don’t want to limit my options. Interested in litigation.

1. Weil (4)

2. Ropes and Gray (6)

3. Kirkland and Ellis (28 but seemed unusual and I want and was told to bid high-was this bad advice? I am considering bidding White & Case (5) here )

4. Cleary (10 but the firm I am currently most interested in)

5. Paul Weiss (9)

6. Skadden (10)

7. Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld (11)

8. Davis Polk (11)

9. Latham (13)

10. Fried Frank (13)

11. King & Spalding (15)

12. Paul Hastings (19)

13. Linklaters (17)

14. Craveth (19)

15. Jones Day (19)

16. Shearman (20)

17. K&L Gates (22)

18. Simpson Thatcher (22)

19. Hogan Lovells (24)

20. Arnold Porter (26)

21. Cadwalader (26)

22. Mayer Brown (26)

23. Schulte Roth (27)

24. Clifford Chance (27)

25. Norton Rose Fulbright (29)

26. Alston & Bird LLP (*)

27. Greenburg Traurig (*)

28.

29.

30.

I don’t know what to do with the last three.

Thanks!

TheoO

Silver
Posts: 658
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 1:28 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby TheoO » Sat Jun 24, 2017 11:40 am

swap our cadwalader if you're stone, you'll get one of the other ones. White and Case would be a fairly safe addition. And if K&E was 28 last year, it will be a waste to keep it that high. I doubt it will change too much. I could be wrong but it seems like a waste of a position. You can use it to secure less uncertain ones or add something else.

Also, last I remember, KE had extra spaces open for interview during my eip. Some were different offices, but I think there was an nyc ones also.

Anonymous User
Posts: 313028
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Jun 25, 2017 9:12 pm

Mid-Stone (somewhere between 3.55-59), bidding mainly NY for lit, white collar, antitrust (want to go into govt). Strong ties to CA. Not as interested in D.C. that much, except for the right firm. Hamilton fellow (don't know if that makes any difference for EIP). Probably a good interviewer, if past experience is any indication.

This is a very rough bidlist, haven't done too much extra research outside first failed bid and the honors list. Also haven't looked at which firms allow you to bid multiple offices, which may eliminate Proskauer and White & Case downlist.

1. Debevoise (3)
2. Weil (4)
3. Proskauer (3)
4. White & Case (5)
5. Paul Weiss (9)
6. Cleary (10)
7. Davis Polk (11)
8. Gibson Dunn (10)
9. Skadden (10)
10. Sullivan & Cromwell (10)
11. Latham (13)
12. Cooley (14)
13. Covington DC (16)
14. WilmerHale (15)
15. Paul Hastings (19)
16. Williams & Connolly DC (19)
17. Cravath (19)
18. Sidley LA (20)
19. Simpson Thatcher (22)
20. Wachtell (21)
21. Hogan Lovells (24)
22. Cadwalader (26)
23. Mayer Brown (26)
24. Arnold & Porter (26)
25. Kirkland (28)
26. Munger LA (29)
27. White & Case LA *
28. Proskauer LA *
29. DLA Piper (SF) *
30. Greenburg Traurig *

Definitely want to make sure I get interviews with DPW, PW, Cleary, Deb, Gibson, and Weil. Know I don't have a chance with Wachtell or W&C, just didn't know what else to swap in (had a hard enough time filling a list), so willing swap names in and out.

- Guac & Chips

GoneSouth

Bronze
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2015 10:00 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby GoneSouth » Sun Jun 25, 2017 11:01 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Mid-Stone (somewhere between 3.55-59), bidding mainly NY for lit, white collar, antitrust (want to go into govt). Have ties to CA. Not as interested in D.C. that much, except for the right firm. Hamilton fellow (don't know if that makes any difference for EIP). Probably a good interviewer, if past experience is any indication.

This is a very rough bidlist, haven't done too much extra research outside first failed bid and the honors list. Also haven't looked at which firms allow you to bid multiple offices, which may eliminate Proskauer and White & Case downlist.

1. Debevoise (3)
2. Weil (4)
3. Proskauer (3)
4. White & Case (5)
5. Paul Weiss (9)
6. Cleary (10)
7. Davis Polk (11)
8. Gibson Dunn (10)
9. Skadden (10)
10. Sullivan & Cromwell (10)
11. Latham (13)
12. Cooley (14)
13. Covington DC (16)
14. WilmerHale (15)
15. Paul Hastings (19)
16. Williams & Connolly DC (19)
17. Cravath (19)
18. Sidley LA (20)
19. Simpson Thatcher (22)
20. Wachtell (21)
21. Hogan Lovells (24)
22. Cadwalader (26)
23. Mayer Brown (26)
24. Arnold & Porter (26)
25. Kirkland (28)
26. Munger LA (29)
27. White & Case LA *
28. Proskauer LA *
29. DLA Piper (SF) *
30. Greenburg Traurig *

Definitely want to make sure I get interviews with DPW, PW, Cleary, Deb, Gibson, and Weil. Know I don't have a chance with Wachtell or W&C, just didn't know what else to swap in (had a hard enough time filling a list), so willing swap names in and out.

- Guac & Chips


Your bid list is tight, and I'd say it's likely that you'll miss one or multiple of Gibson, Skadden and SullCrom and probably some further down. Two years ago, Gibson and Skadden both had an FFB of 3. You really want to try to have a cushion of at least three spots on firms you really care about. I'd pick a couple of ones at the top that you're not as excited about, move them down to the 20s, and then gamble that they're the same firms that everyone else does that with. Or maybe bid Skadden/Gibson LA and they will probably let you split with NY if you get an offer. Kirkland dropped to 28 last year because it was 1 the year prior and people didn't like it as much as the other #1 firms.

As you mentioned, W&C and Wachtell are wasted bids. Munger is too. I'm thinking you want to add a few safer NYC firms because your list right now looks pretty aggressive. You should be ok with your grades, but I don't think you can afford to just go balls to the wall.

Anonymous User
Posts: 313028
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Jun 25, 2017 11:35 pm

GoneSouth wrote:
Your bid list is tight, and I'd say it's likely that you'll miss one or multiple of Gibson, Skadden and SullCrom and probably some further down. Two years ago, Gibson and Skadden both had an FFB of 3. You really want to try to have a cushion of at least three spots on firms you really care about. I'd pick a couple of ones at the top that you're not as excited about, move them down to the 20s, and then gamble that they're the same firms that everyone else does that with. Or maybe bid Skadden/Gibson LA and they will probably let you split with NY if you get an offer. Kirkland dropped to 28 last year because it was 1 the year prior and people didn't like it as much as the other #1 firms.

As you mentioned, W&C and Wachtell are wasted bids. Munger is too. I'm thinking you want to add a few safer NYC firms because your list right now looks pretty aggressive. You should be ok with your grades, but I don't think you can afford to just go balls to the wall.


Modified the list a bit after some input from friends. Killed Proskauer, Cadwalader, and W&C, added Freshfield, Clifford Chance, and Irell. Per your advice I put Skadden LA on the list to make some more room up top. I'm considering just killing SullCrom and putting Skadden NY back up there, mainly because I'm less than thrilled at the prospect at working at SullCrom, but I know that Skadden LA isn't a bad office. Moved Kirkland up to 11. Still have Wachtell and Munger on the list, but mostly because I don't know what to swap them for. Are there any firms that are glaringly missing that would be better off in those spots? Do I still need to loosen my bidlist up on the bottom half?

I bolded the firms I'm particularly interested in atm, so I'd like to maximize my shot of getting interviews with most, if not all, of them before I worry about safety bids.

1. Debevoise (3)
2. Weil (4)
3. Paul Weiss (9)
4. Cleary (10)
5. Davis Polk (11)
6. Gibson Dunn (10)
7. Akin Gump DC (12)
8. Latham (13)
9. Sidley Austin (2)
10. Kirkland (28)
11. WilmerHale (15)
12. Cooley (14)
13. Covington DC (16)
14. Linklaters (17)
15. Simpson Thatcher (22)
16. Cravath (19)
17. Sidley LA (20)
18. Skadden LA (23)
19. WilmerHale DC (22)
20. Hogan Lovells (24)
21. Clifford Chance (27)
22. Mayer Brown (26)
23. Cleary DC (26)
24. Paul Weiss DC (28)
25. Freshfields (28)
26. White & Case DC (26)
27. Irell & Manella LA *
28. Proskauer LA *
29. DLA Piper LA *
30. DLA Piper SF *

EDIT: Did some more changes.

- Guac & Chips
Last edited by Anonymous User on Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

TheoO

Silver
Posts: 658
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 1:28 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby TheoO » Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:15 am

I dunno if midstone makes you that competitive for sullcrom (is it SullCrom LA?). Maybe borderline, so if you want it, try. I've seen them on the board taking on extra interviews during EIP, but it may have been for their CA offices.

If you can find something to replace Paul Hastings with, that might be a good idea. With your grades, you're definitely going to get much better firms. The issue is to just maximize your potential interviews. And even if you don't get all your bids. Sending an email with your transcript and resume right after the bids come out will most likely land you an interview.


AND THIS IS GENERAL ADVICE: Immediately after the bids come out, see what firms you didn't get and make sure to send a short and concise email (2-3 sentences at most) telling them that you (1) bid them and didn't get them, and (2) would really like to interview. Often, firms will just schedule you in without much effort. And when I say immediately, I mean: that very night. The sooner the better.

Anonymous User
Posts: 313028
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 26, 2017 8:49 pm

Anonymous User wrote:By my calculation, I'm at a 3.408 (B+/B+/B+ | A (3 cr)/A- (4 cr)/B+ (3 cr)/B (4 cr)). I think Stone is 3.41 - any chance they round?

Assuming they don't, how much will that 0.002 matter? Will certain firms be out of reach because of it?

Interested in Chicago (from the Midwest). Anyone know if I have decent chance at Skadden/Latham/K&E/Sidley's Chicago offices at EIP? Mayer Brown?

Thanks for the help!

-oh hello


Sorry for the bump. Under "Honors and Prizes" on Lawnet, my transcript says "Harlan Fiske Stone." This is wrong, right? 3.41 is a hard cut off?

User avatar
RSN

Silver
Posts: 967
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2014 9:32 pm

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby RSN » Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:31 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:By my calculation, I'm at a 3.408 (B+/B+/B+ | A (3 cr)/A- (4 cr)/B+ (3 cr)/B (4 cr)). I think Stone is 3.41 - any chance they round?

Assuming they don't, how much will that 0.002 matter? Will certain firms be out of reach because of it?

Interested in Chicago (from the Midwest). Anyone know if I have decent chance at Skadden/Latham/K&E/Sidley's Chicago offices at EIP? Mayer Brown?

Thanks for the help!

-oh hello


Sorry for the bump. Under "Honors and Prizes" on Lawnet, my transcript says "Harlan Fiske Stone." This is wrong, right? 3.41 is a hard cut off?


If your Lawnet transcript says Stone, seems like a pretty fair bet that you're Stone. Congrats!

Anonymous User
Posts: 313028
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:47 pm

RSN wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:By my calculation, I'm at a 3.408 (B+/B+/B+ | A (3 cr)/A- (4 cr)/B+ (3 cr)/B (4 cr)). I think Stone is 3.41 - any chance they round?

Assuming they don't, how much will that 0.002 matter? Will certain firms be out of reach because of it?

Interested in Chicago (from the Midwest). Anyone know if I have decent chance at Skadden/Latham/K&E/Sidley's Chicago offices at EIP? Mayer Brown?

Thanks for the help!

-oh hello


Sorry for the bump. Under "Honors and Prizes" on Lawnet, my transcript says "Harlan Fiske Stone." This is wrong, right? 3.41 is a hard cut off?


If your Lawnet transcript says Stone, seems like a pretty fair bet that you're Stone. Congrats!


Wow, that's awesome. Thanks! For future reference to anyone interested, they must use three decimal places rather than two.

GoneSouth

Bronze
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2015 10:00 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2017

Postby GoneSouth » Mon Jun 26, 2017 9:51 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
RSN wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:By my calculation, I'm at a 3.408 (B+/B+/B+ | A (3 cr)/A- (4 cr)/B+ (3 cr)/B (4 cr)). I think Stone is 3.41 - any chance they round?

Assuming they don't, how much will that 0.002 matter? Will certain firms be out of reach because of it?

Interested in Chicago (from the Midwest). Anyone know if I have decent chance at Skadden/Latham/K&E/Sidley's Chicago offices at EIP? Mayer Brown?

Thanks for the help!

-oh hello


Sorry for the bump. Under "Honors and Prizes" on Lawnet, my transcript says "Harlan Fiske Stone." This is wrong, right? 3.41 is a hard cut off?


If your Lawnet transcript says Stone, seems like a pretty fair bet that you're Stone. Congrats!


Wow, that's awesome. Thanks! For future reference to anyone interested, they must use three decimal places rather than two.


Weird, my 2L honors aren't on there yet. I didn't think they ran things early for 1Ls



Return to “Legal Employment?

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.